Gilmour dismisses modern formula music...

[Jay.Dee]

or perhaps the Gilmour haters are actually so stupid that they think Gilmour is referring to Univers Zero and PoiL

Of course he is not referring and that is precisely the problem. Gilmour is looking at the mainstream pop charts, because he has just released an album and he wants it to enter them. He did not start a personal blog a few years back to help struggling "progressive" artists to give visibility and credibility to their non-formulaic music. He speaks because he has his own new release, he wants to mobilize his followers under the banner of good ol' rock. No, he is not stupid, far from it, he is a smart salesman.

[zombywoof]

Exactly. Ian Anderson did the EXACT same thing a few months ago and I criticized him for it. Does that make me a Ian Anderson 'hater'? No! He's one of my favorite artists; to disagree with an artist or anyone on ONE issue does not a hater make.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

you are ignoring the ignorant here who are taking offense to Gilmour's comments as if he was talking about non-mainstream artists

they support their attack on Gilmour by suggesting he was talking about truly creative "modern" artists instead of the actual music he *is* criticizing.

He is *not* criticizing PoiL as "formulaic" yet the Gilmour haters are attacking him as if he did

[Scott Bails]

So wait, now anyone who disagrees with Gilmour is a 'hater'? And anyone who likes Roger Waters is a 'troll'? Weird ...

Yeah, this whole schtick is really getting old. Enough already.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

except for the fact that my words were twisted and that is NOT what I said... I agree... Enough already.

[Facelift]

...according to Prog Rock Mag.

Good thing we have David Gilmour out there re-inventing the wheel every time he makes a new album.

[Scrotum Scissor]

He is *not* criticizing PoiL as "formulaic" yet the Gilmour haters are attacking him as if he did

Hm. I don't think the specific "Gilmour-hater" you're referring to has much in opinion/knowledge about PoiL exactly. Other than that, I agree with you.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Good thing we have David Gilmour out there re-inventing the wheel every time he makes a new album.

And good to know that we have that 'Mag' a well, because they're so encompassing as regards the "prog".

[Trane]

and why some people like to refer to the "sixventies", roughly comprising the period from 1966 to 1975,

Never heard of it, but I like the concept >> not easy to say, though...

Pot calling Kettle come's to mind as far as Gilmour's concerned. Every Floyd album since Waters left is prog by numbers!

Indeed... not even sure I would call it all that "prog" at all, FTM.... (though I totally think that Waters' Floyd is prog)

Indeed, and the recent glory assigned to Division Bell through the amped-up recent Super Duper Deluxe is particularly mind-boggling!

they did that?? ... oh yeah, i vaguely remember >> didn't pay attention...

[Trane]

this is the kind of thread tailor made for Waters' voluntary troll brigade... let the piling on commence

If you insist!!!
Do you thinkl Waters would've let the CD version track list the same as the vinyl's version?? (this is disgraceful )

Well, lazy and fattened up (and curmudgeon-esque) Gilmour did!!

or perhaps the Gilmour haters are actually so stupid that they think Gilmour is referring to Univers Zero and PoiL

Nope, maybe they think Gilmour's too stupid to know of UZ and PoiL !!




btw, I don't hate Gilmour, but he oughta twist his tongue in his mouth 7 times before speaking.

(and you turn your fingers 10 times around your KB before clicking "submit reply"... )

[Zeuhlmate]

I think Gilmour needs to get out a bit more.

[Jay.Dee]

For modern progressive music to hope for a wider appeal, its "idiomatic" audience would have to forget about the limitations imposed by its past.

These are not limitations imposed by the past. Most rock listeners, progressive or not, past or modern, look(ed) for great songs - all that happens in between: jams, solos or improvisations, is of secondary importance. When you do not have a good melody or a catchy riff to carry/frame them, 95% of listeners will not pay attention, no matter how progressive the music is, how agile musicians are and what type of past progressive style it relates to.

Good songwriting separates "stars" from "niche". In a different thread you have asked why prog listeners are stuck to a nth release of familiar King Crimson material instead of fetching, say, Korekyojinn. It is simple, King Crimson have an impressive collection of great tunes, while Korekyojinn display little (interest in honing) songwriting skills, at least judging by what I have heard and witnessed so far. If Crimson had only Fractures or Moonchild improvs on offer in their catalogue, only a tiny fraction of prog listeners would be interested in their music.

If PoiL came up with a ear-catching tune or riff they would be this forum's heroes overnight (maybe they already have it). Look at the (relative) success of Cardiacs - they knew how to write a good song and even though their music seems relatively "difficult" they could quickly find a group of dedicated followers here. Think of the success of John Zorn, who started to write catchy tunes employing middle-eastern scales and quickly rose to the avantgarde stardom. Last but not least, consider the stature of Thelonious Monk or Ornette Coleman - the guys are so revered because they had a talent to write tuneful compositions, even if they played them in an "awkward" manner (for less seasoned jazz listeners).

Most fans may rave over sick solos, tangled arrangements and free improvs, but it is only because at the bottom or 'round the corner there is always a good song or a catchy tune/riff. Take it out of the equation and there is hardly anyone left in the audience.

[Yeswave]

you are ignoring the ignorant here who are taking offense to Gilmour's comments as if he was talking about non-mainstream artists

they support their attack on Gilmour by suggesting he was talking about truly creative "modern" artists instead of the actual music he *is* criticizing.

He is *not* criticizing PoiL as "formulaic" yet the Gilmour haters are attacking him as if he did

I'm a Yes fanatic - we've got enough problems of our own without getting involved in a Waters/ Gilmour fight. I have absolutely no view about that. My original point wasn't that he was referring to obscure artists but that the type of formulaic pop he's refering to has always been around and been popular and it looks like a view I share with many.

>the difference being that those artists actually played instruments whereas todays artists let the computer do it all.

I have never written a song but that feels like as if it's doing them a little injustice. What's the difference between electronic music/ sampling (e.g. Moog/ Mellotron) and letting the computer do it all?

[Scott Bails]

I have never written a song but that feels like as if it's doing them a little injustice. What's the difference between electronic music/ sampling (e.g. Moog/ Mellotron) and letting the computer do it all?

You still have to play a Moog or Mellotron.

[Scrotum Scissor]

These are not limitations imposed by the past. Most rock listeners, progressive or not, past or modern, look(ed) for great songs - all that happens in between: jams, solos or improvisations, is of secondary importance. [...] If Crimson had only Fractures or Moonchild improvs on offer in their catalogue, only a tiny fraction of prog listeners would be interested in their music.

If PoiL came up with a ear-catching tune or riff they would be this forum's heroes overnight (maybe they already have it). Look at the (relative) success of Cardiacs - they knew how to write a good song and even though their music seems relatively "difficult" they could quickly find a group of dedicated followers here. Think of the success of John Zorn, who started to write catchy tunes employing middle-eastern scales and quickly rose to the avantgarde stardom.

Yesyesyesyesyes but also no. With "limitations" I was not in the slightest implying anything towards the music itself, but to the prejudice arising from a majority of listeners' tendency to sort impressions into immediate brackets. There is PLENTY of splendid melodicism in even some of the most overt avant-garde songwriting out there; the opposite allegation remains one of the firmest myths of "progressive rock" at large (i.e. that somehow avant-garde approaches automatically indicate a lack of "[recognizable] melody", often without the latter being defined whatsoever). ANd the same goes for Mr. Bungle or PoiL - except that the attention to binary structure is mostly secondary.

As for Zorn, it was very much a "meta-cultural" phenomenon that levitated his achievements to fresh status with new audiences. There are even some academic musicologists today who claim his accomplishments to represent that of a paradigm shift in the understanding of modern music and its social functions, formal components and artistic vision.

[zombywoof]

>the difference being that those artists actually played instruments whereas todays artists let the computer do it all.

As far as I know, there's no 'magic music generator' software that makes instant music for pop stars to wail and croon over. The point is, yes the computer can generate music, but someone has to control the computer. The computer is merely a tool, another instrument.

And I have composed pieces and I have used a computer to do so, and never has the computer made choices for me.

[Casey]

After reading this thread, I'm reminded of the Chris Farley-Paul McCartney interview on SNL.

[Scott Bails]

As far as I know, there's no 'magic music generator' software that makes instant music for pop stars to wail and croon over. The point is, yes the computer can generate music, but someone has to control the computer. The computer is merely a tool, another instrument.

And I have composed pieces and I have used a computer to do so, and never has the computer made choices for me.

You can play three notes on a computer and have it repeat endlessly on loop, and then digitally manipulate the tempo, pitch, etc. You may be "creating" music, but you're not really "playing" anything.

[Richard J T]

[QUOTE=spellbound;334163]"I was wondering earlier today, "What kind of music do high school kids listen to these days?" I could enumerate bands and artists I listened to back then, but I'm sure it would sound like a geezer pining for the old days."

Yes, you're right: we are.

[Facelift]

You can play three notes on a computer and have it repeat endlessly on loop, and then digitally manipulate the tempo, pitch, etc. You may be "creating" music, but you're not really "playing" anything.

I don't think it's necessary to be able to play an instrument to be a great musician.

[Zeuhlmate]

I don't think it's necessary to be able to play an instrument to be a great musician.

But it helps a lot !
Pretty difficult to solo, make a chord, harmonize, or just communicate to your fellow musicians if you cant.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

there's a great, relatively new band who are making some excellent music that is NOT formulaic. They are called Gosta Berlings Saga... but I don't think Gilmour was referring to them. I believe Gilmour was referring to the likes of Justin Bieber and boy bands and such.

[Facelift]

But it helps a lot !
Pretty difficult to solo, make a chord, harmonize, or just communicate to your fellow musicians if you cant.

It definitely helps. But there have been great composers of great classical music whose musical playing abilities weren't much beyond basic competence, for example.

On less complicated stuff like rock music, Brian Eno has described himself as a "non-musician" on various occasions.

[zombywoof]

You can play three notes on a computer and have it repeat endlessly on loop, and then digitally manipulate the tempo, pitch, etc. You may be "creating" music, but you're not really "playing" anything.

Very true, but this is not new. See "On the Run" by Pink Floyd.

there's a great, relatively new band who are making some excellent music that is NOT formulaic. They are called Gosta Berlings Saga... but I don't think Gilmour was referring to them. I believe Gilmour was referring to the likes of Justin Bieber and boy bands and such.

GBS rules!! And their (sorta) off-shoot Necromonkey is just as awesome ...

[Scott Bails]

I don't think it's necessary to be able to play an instrument to be a great musician.

I'd argue that if you're not playing a musical instrument, that you're not a musician.

It definitely helps. But there have been great composers of great classical music whose musical playing abilities weren't much beyond basic competence, for example.

So, they're great composers, not great musicians.